Delete an evidence record by UUID. Forbidden if the owning goal is already done (evidence is frozen after close). Removes both the database record and the attached file (if any).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| evidenceId | Yes | UUID evidence-записи |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it states that both the database record and the attached file are removed. It also explains the freeze-after-close rule, which is extra context. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences. The first states the main action; the second adds constraints and side effects. No fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the core operation, the side effect (file deletion), and a key constraint. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. It omits error handling details, but these are not essential given the simple scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single parameter evidenceId with description 'UUID evidence-записи'. Tool description repeats 'by UUID' but doesn't add new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete an evidence record by UUID.' The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like goal-add-evidence or goal-attach-evidence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is a clear condition: 'Forbidden if the owning goal is already done (evidence is frozen after close).' This tells the agent when not to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for similar operations, though the action is unique among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes (goal-create vs goal-update vs goal-delete), but the evidence-related tools (goal-add-evidence-text, goal-attach-evidence, goal-request-upload) and note tools (goal-add-note) have overlapping concepts that require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. Overall, the detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity, but a few tools could be easily confused.
The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a resource prefix (goal-create, goal-get, project-list, project-update). However, there are deviations like account-delete (noun-verb reversed), goal-todo, goal-summary, goal-tree, and goal-recent-unresolved that break the pattern. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
With 38 tools, this server has a very large surface area. Even for a complex planner with evidence management, the number exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., goal-add-note and goal-add-evidence-text), and the size may overwhelm agents during tool selection.
The tool set provides complete coverage of the domain: full goal lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, list, tree, move, reorder, block), evidence management (attach, request upload, text evidence, remove), acceptance criteria (add, update, remove, request change, resolve escalation), assumptions (add, update, remove, suggest, attach evidence), blockers, notes, project management (CRUD, dependencies), and configuration settings. No critical gaps are apparent.